So brexit must go to a vote in the commons, I wonder what the scotts
in 1536274 20161104 073405 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Martin
wrote:
in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint wan=
ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only advisor=
y to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so =
called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.
Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are allo=
wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.
So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.
If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes and
the death penalty would come back.
There hasn't been a referendum on those two matters.
That's exactly my point, Tim. They would not ask a question when they know that
the answer they would get is not the one they want.
|